Memory and insecurity underlie the war with Iran

The latest Middle East War is a showcase for the linkage between memory and insecurity.

Iran can look back on 2,500 years of history, ten times that of the U.S. It remains an empire with Persians constituting only 61 per cent of the population. The remainder is divided among Azerbaijanis, Kurds, and smaller percentages of numerous others, including Turkic groups, Arabs, and Balochs. Its imperial heritage is one reason, though not the only one, why it has long sought to dominate the eponymous Gulf, and why its memory is so long.

Ever since its 1979 revolution, Iran has also seen itself not only as leader of the world’s Shia Islamic community but also as leader of the entire Muslim world. That deeply held attitude has clashed with Saudi Arabia’s leading place among Sunni Arabs, due to the Saudi king’s longstanding title of “Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques.”

Iran’s more recent history has hardly been one of imperial triumphs, however. Iranians now in their 50s may have fought in the brutal 1980 to 1988 war with Iraq. Others that age, or even those in their 40s, also remember the war that left over 200,000 dead, many victims of Saddam Hussein’s unrestrained use chemical weapons throughout the war. The world did not protest.

Indeed many Iranians no doubt remember that their country stood almost alone, even more than it does today, against a coalition that included the U.S., the Soviet Union, Italy, France, Egypt, the United Kingdom, Jordan and Sudan. These states supplied Hussein with either weapons, munitions or both. At the same time Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait poured tens of billions into Saddam’s coffers. China played both sides, openly selling arms to Iraq while covertly aiding Iran as well.

In the last stages of that war, the U.S., with French and British support, in effect launched a war against Iran by providing armed convoy escorts for tankers operating in the Persian Gulf.

Iran stands nearly alone again today. Although it does have Russian support — and to a far lesser extent limited Chinese aid — and it can count on its proxy Hezbollah’s attacks on Israel, far more states are now arrayed again Tehran in some fashion.

These include not only the U.S. and Israel, but the six Gulf Cooperation Council states, Jordan, and Cyprus, all of whose territories have been hit by Iranian drones or missiles. They also include the United Kingdom, France, Greece, Azerbaijan and Germany, which are providing defensive capabilities or logistical support. For Iran, therefore, the coalition it faces simply represents a reprise from its experience in the early days of the Islamic Republic and reinforces the regime’s sense of insecurity.

Memory and insecurity also color Israel’s dogged determination to continue its attacks on Iran for as long as possible. It is not merely the memory of the Holocaust — it is also the memory of the five Arab armies that invaded the fledgling state in 1948, and of Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser’s boast in 1967 that “our basic objective will be to destroy Israel.”

Iranian leaders have echoed the same sentiments. In 2020 Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei spoke of the Jewish state as a “cancerous tumor that must be destroyed.” It should therefore come as no surprise that its leaders, and especially Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, both feared for their state’s existence and, four years later, successfully carried out his assassination.

America has memories that foster its own sense of crisis, still lingering in the minds of Washington policy makers. But even more do the oil shocks of 1973 and 1979. Indeed, Fatih Birol, executive director of the International Energy Agency, has asserted that the current oil shock is worse than the previous two combined.

Memories color policy and foster insecurity not only in the Middle East, where they can endure for centuries, but even in the U.S., despite its reputation for a much shorter memory.

Whatever the outcome of the current conflict, therefore, the memory of the insecurities underscored among the belligerents will linger for many years. Only if there is a change in the Tehran regime might these insecurities finally abate. That change can only come from internal upheaval, however, much as it has done in Syria. And when that change actually will take place remains anyone’s guess.

Dov S. Zakheim is a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and vice chairman of the board for the Foreign Policy Research Institute. He was undersecretary of Defense (comptroller) and chief financial officer for the Department of Defense from 2001 to 2004 and a deputy undersecretary of Defense from 1985 to 1987.

More Opinions - National Security News

Senate Democrats defeat amendment to require photo ID to vote

Montana Senate candidate says he will introduce bill to draft Graham if elected

Senate agrees to fund TSA and most of DHS, but not ICE

House Democrats appear ready to back Senate DHS funding deal

Judge asked to take Trump name off Kennedy Center

House Ethics panel finds 25 of 27 counts against Cherfilus-McCormick proven

Trump disapproval highest in both terms: Fox News poll

How Trump lost the war with Iran

Trump slams ‘terrible’ Fox News polls

Cooper leads Whatley by 8 points in NC Senate race: Survey

Here are Iran’s 5 conditions for ending war after rejecting US ceasefire plan

Are migrating Democrats turning Florida blue?

Florida wins after Trump takeover leave Democrats feeling brighter about ...

Platner holds commanding lead over Mills in Maine Senate race: Poll

Trump says ‘military wanted’ White House ballroom: ‘That was supposed to ...

House passes measure to fund DHS as senators struggle to reach deal

Rubio faces skeptical Europe at critical moment for Iran war

Live updates: Senate deal to fund DHS faces tricky path in House

The Hill Podcasts – Morning Report

© The Hill

visit website